Professional benefits?

The term “journalist” has long had a broad and nebulous definition. It’s how Woodward and Bernstein, Hunter S. Thompson, Ida B. Wells, Christiane Amanpour and Tucker Carlson all fit into the same category. It’s why Nathan Earl Hughes of Bentonville can try to make a case that he qualifies as one just because he makes posts to a website.

Hughes stands accused of assaulting and obstructing law enforcement officers who put themselves in harm’s way to protect the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He’s set to go on trial July 15.

His attorney, William L. Shipley of Kailua, Hawaii, wants a judge to throw out the case against him because he is, at least according to that attorney, a “freelance independent journalist with a history of reporting on political rallies, demonstrations and protests going back to 2017.”

Who knew being a journalist came with a get-out-of-court-free card?

It is, of course, fair for the judge to be skeptical about the journalism claim. And, given that Hughes faces charges related to mob violence against U.S. Capitol police, we suggest there’s not a journalist on the planet that should get an automatic pass in the name of the profession.

Count us among the extremely dubious as to Hughes’ involvement in the Fourth Estate. But even if it’s so, the relevance of that sounds like something for a jury to decide in trial, not a judge in pre-trial motions.

Speaking of journalists, not many in Arkansas can afford an attorney from Hawaii. Maybe the guy who sent all those folks to the U.S. Capitol is footing the bill. Our advice? Get cash.